7 Reasons Democrats Can't End the War

Nick Gillespie | September 27, 2007, 9:30am

reason Contributing Editor Carolyn Lochhead, who works out of the SF Chronicle's Washington bureau, reports on why the Dems haven't bowed to the will of the American people and ended the war in Iraq:

Two-thirds of the country oppose the Iraq war, but Democrats again are proving unable to achieve their promised "new direction," and President Bush is certain to keep the maximum possible number of U.S. forces in Iraq for the remainder of his presidency.

At the end of a heavily reported story, she summarizes thus:

7 reasons Democrats cannot end the war in Iraq

1. Lack of votes: Democrats have 50 anti-war votes in the Senate. They need 60 to overcome Republican filibusters that have blocked every proposal to change the U.S. mission. Even if they cleared that hurdle, they lack the two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate to overcome a presidential veto.
2. Public uncertainty: Two-thirds of the public want to leave Iraq, but that majority is unsure how and when to do so. Politicians also are wary that the public mood could shift.
3. Strategic uncertainty: No one knows what would happen if U.S. troops pull back, and the potential for bad outcomes is high no matter what the United States does.
4. Blame game: Democrats are afraid that if there is a withdrawal and Iraq spirals out of control, they will be blamed for losing a war that might have been won and will be held responsible for any bad consequences in the Middle East.
5. Lack of bipartisanship: Bipartisanship does not serve either party's political interest. Agreement blurs partisan distinctions, makes Democrats look like they are capitulating and forces Republicans to countenance an American defeat.
6. Guilt: Many Democrats believe the United States, having invaded Iraq, bears responsibility for stabilizing it.
7. The Constitution: If the United States were a parliamentary democracy, the Bush administration would have been replaced last November. But under the Constitution, the president is commander in chief, and Congress' only tool is to cut off funds for the war, which it can't do because there are not enough votes.

More here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Send this article to:

Comments to "7 Reasons Democrats Can't End the War":

NP | September 27, 2007, 9:40am | #

With all due respect, Ms. Lochhead, tell us something we don't know.

John | September 27, 2007, 9:42am | #

I didn't watch it, but I am told that none of the Democratic candidates in last night's debate would comit to withdrawing all American troops from Iraq before the end of their Presidential term. That is in 2013. The nutroots and the hard core libertarians can piss in the wind all they want, but the top Democrats are not whackjobs. They understand the importance of winning in Iraq. They may not be able to admit it publicly but they do. The only thing that will change if a Democrat wins in 2008 is the media will all of the sudden disover "good news" stories in Iraq, which is fine. As long as we win, I really don't care if the storyline to history is "Democrats save the day after Bush messed up Iraq."

MP | September 27, 2007, 9:44am | #

Those that promised to withdraw but didn't are the true cowards.

Oh well, back to voting according to my wallet.

robc | September 27, 2007, 9:44am | #

Okay, point #1 is idiotic. You dont need 60 votes to not fund something. You only need 41.

dhex | September 27, 2007, 9:44am | #

you forgot "spineless gang of douchebags"

c'mon we need some dems to do the "but at least they're not *totally* evil" dance.

Dan T | September 27, 2007, 9:45am | #

Let's also consider that many Democrats, at least behind closed doors, probably believe that we need to remain in Iraq. I mean, they did vote to go in there in the first place.

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 9:46am | #

They understand the importance of winning in Iraq.

Deep in thought, channeling Bob Barker, Aaah here it comes...

"And John, Tell the folks what they've won."

John | September 27, 2007, 9:47am | #

"Let's also consider that many Democrats, at least behind closed doors, probably believe that we need to remain in Iraq. I mean, they did vote to go in there in the first place."

Exactly.

joe | September 27, 2007, 9:49am | #

Items 2, 3, 4, and 6 are all belied by the voting record.

If Democrats are actually unwilling to end the war because of strategic or political concerns, you wouldn't know it by the overwhelming landslide majorities - on the order of 90-99% - who keep voting to end the war when a bill to do so comes up.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 9:49am | #

robc is right. If they had 41 Senators who really wanted to end this clusterfuck they could filibuster the funds, and probably use other examples of procedure-fu as well. This is the Senate we're talking about, after all, where a few months ago the Republicans managed to produce a filibuster in which the Democrats were required to do the talking. I don't know how, but they did it, because Senate rules are just that screwed up.

So if 41 Democrats wanted to stop something they could. And if the Majority Leader, with his intricate and subtle procedural powers, wanted to join them, they could probably produce a filibuster so mind-boggingly bizarre that years later we'd still be trying to figure out why 2 Republican Senators had to move out of their offices, sing a song in Sanskrit, then move back in.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 9:50am | #

Let's also consider that many Democrats, at least behind closed doors, probably believe that we need to remain in Iraq. I mean, they did vote to go in there in the first place.

Dan, this is one of those times when I can say that I unequivocally agree with you. Many Democrats are probably dumb enough to actually believe we need to continue the clusterfuck.

Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all.

robc | September 27, 2007, 9:53am | #

thoreau,

I could explain the Sanskrit thing to you, but by Senate rules, I can only explain it in Sanskrit.

joe | September 27, 2007, 9:53am | #

John and thoreau make the same mistake.

Recognizing the need to end the war responsibly is not the same thing as believing we need to make the Bush/Cheney "American Client State" strategy succeed.

If, by 2009, we've got 2000 American troops carrying out raids against al Qaeda bases in Diyala Province and backing up the Peshmerga as they defend the Kurdish population, we will have both ended the Iraq War AND still have a military presence there.

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 9:56am | #

""""And John, Tell the folks what they've won.""""

An 8000 pound gorilla that get's really pissed if you stop paying attention to it.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 9:56am | #

joe, if we go from 200,000+ personnel in the field (counting contractors and other civilians) to having a few thousand I'll be happy to call that a huge improvement.

But we won't get to that situation during the Bush administration unless the Democrats show that they're willing to play hardball. And the Democrats aren't willing to do that. So I have to concludethat they don't want to do that.

If they don't want to do what it takes to drastically reduce the troop presence in Iraq then perhaps they don't actually want to.

dhex | September 27, 2007, 9:59am | #

If they don't want to do what it takes to drastically reduce the troop presence in Iraq then perhaps they don't actually want to.

which leads me to ask "why" specifically.

any ideas?

joe | September 27, 2007, 10:00am | #

thoreau,

Do you remember, circa 2005, when the Freepers were saying, "If Bush really wanted to win the war in Iraq, he would use nuclearl weapons?"

Er, no. The fact that Bush did not want to use nuclear weapons did not mean he did not wish to end the war in Iraq.

And the fact that the Democrats do not want to cut off all funding for all operations there, including the funds needed to carry out a withdrawal, does not mean that they wish the war to continue.

robc | September 27, 2007, 10:01am | #

The Iraq War ended with the capture of Hussein. Mission Accomplished. Baathists out of power, Saddam dead, threat from (non-existent) WMDs eliminated, game over.

The postware nation building clusterfuck on the other hand can be ended by us declaring victory and going home.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 10:02am | #

joe, refusing to fund doesn't mean that withdrawal doesn't get funded. It means that the war doesn't get funded, and then Bush has to come crawling with hat in hand to agree to a withdrawal, at which point the withdrawal gets funded.

When I refused to pay for the more expensive gym membership that the guy offered me, I didn't leave the gym. I waited for his next offer. But I made it damn clear that the first offer wouldn't fly.

joe | September 27, 2007, 10:04am | #

robc,

Like most barbarians, the Bushies don't consider the mission over until they've gotten their spoils.

In this case, basing rights, a compliant government, and oil concessions.

joe | September 27, 2007, 10:11am | #

thoreau,

The President's C-in-C powers give him a great deal of lattitude in spending funds appropriated for military operations in a war zone.

If Bush says that "keeping the roads clear of al Qaeda" is part of their withdrawal operations, who gets to contradict him?

And then, a couple months later, he comes back and asks for more money to fund some more "withdrawing."

The only way to force Bush to end the war and change what the forces in Iraq are doing is to get enough votes to change their orders.

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 10:11am | #

joe continues with his delusions that somehow the Democrats are principled politicians while the Republicans are demonspawn, even though the Democrats don't actually do anything to prove his beliefs.

It's just a political game to all the fucks in Washington, joe. ALL of them. Right now, Bush is holding the bag. If the Democrats force a withdrawl, they can be blamed for any problems that arise because they are now "responsible" for the current direction. As long as they prevaricate and dither, Bush is still responsible, which is good for them, and good for their presidential candidates in 2008.

Why fix the problem now? Then they won't have it to bash the Republicans with in 2008.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 10:18am | #

joe, if you think he can play the "inherent powers" game with the withdrawal funds, why can't he play the "inherent powers" game with withdrawal orders? "They were ordered to clear the streets of Al Qaeda to ensure a safe withdrawal path...."

The only way to get this guy to avoid playing games is to show that the Dems are willing to use the power of the purse. Or not use the power of the purse, depending on how you look at it. They can wait for the 17 magical Republican Senators to join the 49 Democrats and 1 Democrat-leaning independent (sorry, Lieberman doesn't count, not on this issue), and while they're at it they can wait for pigs to fly. Alternately, they can scrounge up 41 Senators who are willing to filibuster.

They refuse to use the tools at hand, and instead wait for the impossible. That's no way to strengthen their hand in dealing with this thug who calls himself the President of a Republic.

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 10:18am | #

The postware nation building clusterfuck on the other hand can be ended by us declaring victory and going home.

We did it in 'Nam. No, this ain't snark.

Rattlesnake Jake | September 27, 2007, 10:18am | #

"They understand the importance of winning in Iraq."

Is that possible with the number of troops we have? And, if not, is the only way to get that proper number is by reinstating the draft and would the public go for it for such a questionable war?

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 10:19am | #

"""Er, no. The fact that Bush did not want to use nuclear weapons did not mean he did not wish to end the war in Iraq."""

The story I read was that Bush was talking about the idea and the Joint Chiefs threatened to resign.

"""The postware nation building clusterfuck on the other hand can be ended by us declaring victory and going home.""""

That's not true and part of the problem. If we leave Iraq will become a bigger clusterfuck. No one really wants that. 4000 troops died for what? And almost all of those were after we "won" by defeating Saddam. The Dems would have to explain how 4000 didn't die in vain. That's defense they do not want to play and understandable so.

joe | September 27, 2007, 10:22am | #

Episiarch,

I'm perfectly willing to recognize that Democrats follow the political angle when it benefits them. But letting the war continue if they can stop it doesn't have any angle for the Democrats.

They won their Congressional majority on promising to end the war, and now they're taking a beating and shedding support because it hasn't ended.

And what benefit are they supposed to get from this ongoing bleed? Making the Republicans look bad? The Republicans already look bad.

Following the logic of politicians' self-interest makes sense, E. But that's not what you're doing. You're ignoring these politicians' self-interest logic, so you can retreat into the stale "pox on both their houses" narrative that supports your partisan preference.

Look at the facts and logic, then use those to figure out what's happening. You're thinking backwards.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 10:24am | #

They won their Congressional majority on promising to end the war, and now they're taking a beating and shedding support because it hasn't ended.

Yes. Yes indeed.

And what benefit are they supposed to get from this ongoing bleed? Making the Republicans look bad? The Republicans already look bad.

Teach the Democrats the price of breaking important promises?

If you'll vote for them no matter what they do, then don't be surprised by what they do.

mitch | September 27, 2007, 10:25am | #

The Democrats are hedging their bets; it is hard to tell what will happen in Iraq, and it is hard to tell how this will affect their careers. So, instead of doing anything decisive, like fully supporting the president or devoting all their energy to stopping him, most of them steer a middle course that gives them a chance to take credit and avoid blame whatever might happen in the next few years or decades.

joe | September 27, 2007, 10:26am | #

thoreau,

Orders are clearer than funding conditions. The War Power is greater, even, than the power of the purse.

Ten Republicans added to the Democratic majority is what it would take to end the war.

Now, your point on parliamentary strategy is a good one. Democratic Senators can be such infuriating wimps. Ohnoes, someone might call me a wimp!

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 10:29am | #

"""They won their Congressional majority on promising to end the war, and now they're taking a beating and shedding support because it hasn't ended."""

A simple, or small majority doesn't cut it in the Republic we are. That's what some people on the left don't understand. In the Senate, you need at least majority plus 9 to beat a President. If the Dems had that, things would be different.

robc | September 27, 2007, 10:29am | #

The Dems would have to explain how 4000 didn't die in vain. That's defense they do not want to play and understandable so.

Thats an easy explanation.

"They died in vain becuase the dumbass president had a plan for winning the war, but no plan for the post war occupation. Thats because you cant build nations, they build from within, which is why Kurdistan is working so well and we will continue to support them as they build a free and democratic nation."

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 10:29am | #

First, joe, nothing is greater than the power of the purse, in the end. Nothing.

But leaving aside that quibble, what good will 10 Republican Senators do if the bill beats a filibuster but then gets vetoed?

The bottom line is that Congress must not pass a funding bill without a requirement for an immediate withdrawal. Whether they do that by filibustering any bill that doesn't include a requirement (41 Dems will suffice) or passing a bill that does include the requirement (there you need 60 votes to beat the filibuster), the message must go to Bush that the only bills he gets to sign are bills with withdrawal requirements.

Since this can be done either way, why not do it now? 41 Dems will suffice.

joe | September 27, 2007, 10:30am | #

thoreau, that doesn't make any sense. Democrats in Congress are continuing a war they don't want, so that fewer people will vote for Democrats?

I know you're angry. We all are. Still, you need to keep your head.

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 10:30am | #

I don't see it that way, joe--what I see is a bunch of politicians (and this includes the Republicans too) who are not sure what is going to happen, and how the public is going to react. The public, according to polls (which are notoriously inaccurate and often politically biased), is majority in favor of getting out. But what does that mean? Total withdrawl? Gradual withdrawl? One last set of strikes and then get out?

It's all very unclear, and like any politician, they are afraid to do anything substantial in case it backfires. So right now, the Republicans and especially Bush are much more in the hot seat, so they'll let it remain that way until they either get a clearer idea of what to do, or they get in the hot seat.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 10:31am | #

I don't know why they're continuing the war, joe. I really don't. The one thing I do know is that they need to pay a price for continuing it.

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 10:35am | #

I don't see many principled stands going on in Congress. Rather, it's the same old jockeying for political advantage, damn the best interests of the country. Blind faith in the good intentions of either party is a mistake.

Rattlesnake Jake | September 27, 2007, 10:37am | #

"No one really wants that. 4000 troops died for what?"

But why stay longer and have more die in an unwinnable war?

joe | September 27, 2007, 10:38am | #

thoreau,

You're right that it does ultimately come back to the power of the purse. That doesn't mean it starts there.

Refusing to fund any operations at all is a fight the Democrats can't win. Forcing a change of policy is a fight they can win.

MP | September 27, 2007, 10:38am | #

If the Democrats only fund the effort enough to withdraw the troops, and the President decides "Screw it, they're staying, even with no resources" then who is culpable for the tragic consequences that would befall the troops left to blow in the wind?

That would be the President, not Congress. Because it was the President who made the final decision about how to utilize the resources at his disposal.

The Democrats have failed to even budge the President's policy. Have they done a single thing to change Bush's actions in Iraq? No. They've huffed and puffed and caved-in whenever push came to shove.

They have been a complete failure.

joe | September 27, 2007, 10:41am | #

That's more plausible, Episiarch. But it still doesn't explain why pretty much 100% of the Democrats in Congress have repeatedly gone on record, with their votes to "cut and run, retreat, choose-to-lose, and surrender to terrorists," if they are afraid of paying a political price in case the war starts going well.

joe | September 27, 2007, 10:42am | #

thoreau,

The one thing I do know is that they need to pay a price for continuing it.

I agree; Democratic voters should support primary challengers to those minority Democrats who have provided aid and comfort to the Republicans' political strategy.

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 10:42am | #

Remember that if the Democrats do anything real to force withdrawl, the right will go into interstellar overdrive screaming that they are traitors, don't support the troops, are going to be responsible for Iraqi civil war, yada yada yada. And if some kind of horrible result occurs (actual, terrible civil war, or a dictator, or Islamic rule), it will be placed squarely on the Dems.

The Democrats, being politicians, know this will suck for them bigtime. Best let Bush hold the reins because that's where the blame can be placed.

Simple political calculation.

P Brooks | September 27, 2007, 10:46am | #

8: They're a bunch of sleazy, duplicitous, self-aggrandizing cowards. Just like the other half of the Government Party.

J sub D | September 27, 2007, 10:49am | #

That's not true and part of the problem. If we leave Iraq will become a bigger clusterfuck. No one really wants that. 4000 troops died for what?

What then, 8,000 troops cause iraq is gonna be OK in another 6 years? 12,000 troops cause Iraq is gonna Ok in 12 years? How many deaths? How many years? Nobody, I mean nobody, in Washington wants to tackle that one. And yet good American men and women, are dying and getting mutilated daily.

Lurker Kurt | September 27, 2007, 10:55am | #

Let's also consider that many Democrats, at least behind closed doors, probably believe that we need to remain in Iraq. I mean, they did vote to go in there in the first place.

Dan T., that is a very well reasoned and thoughtful comment. Keep up the good work.

Rhywun | September 27, 2007, 11:10am | #

God, I wish we had a parliamentary system.

A-fucking-men. Perhaps then the Dept. of Defense could go back to... defense?

And if some kind of horrible result occurs (actual, terrible civil war, or a dictator, or Islamic rule), it will be placed squarely on the Dems.

Instead of the people who started it. God damn, I hate politics.

Lost_In_Translation | September 27, 2007, 11:12am | #

Hmm, politicians talking out of both sides of their mouth, concerned more about fickle voter confidence than hashing out correct policy...and we are to be shocked by this?

How's Paul Broun doing btw?

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 11:19am | #

God, I wish we had a parliamentary system.

A-fucking-men.

Are you sure you mean that? Parlimentary systems end up with results that are much more like pure democracy than our system. That's a hell of a lot closer to tyrrany of the majority.

Our system sucks but I think it is demonstrably better than a parlimentary system. Parlimentary systems are designed to give more power to politicians than ours, which is why almost every colony and defeated state that went independent in the last 100 years went with a parlimentary system.

James Anderson Merritt | September 27, 2007, 11:27am | #

It isn't true that the power of the purse is Congress' "only tool" in this situation. They could also rescind the authorization to use force, especially in view of the fact that the initial objectives that sold the authorization to the Congress and the people appear to have been met.

Of course, perversely, the President can veto such a measure ("You can't make me quit killing the terr'ists! nyah nyah!"), but if the Congress had guts enough to rescind the authorization, they might have guts enough to make it veto-proof.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, of course. This scenario cannot possibly occur, on account of the fact Congress has no guts at all, and appears to be in no danger of growing a spine. I apologize for wasting your time on something that is even less likely than a Libertarian becoming President in our lifetimes.

On the other hand, if Congress is gutless, they won't use their "only power" of the purse, either. It doesn't matter which "tools" they have, if they don't have the fortitude and will to use them.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 27, 2007, 11:34am | #

"Remember that if the Democrats do anything real to force withdrawl, the right will go into interstellar overdrive screaming that they are traitors, don't support the troops, are going to be responsible for Iraqi civil war, yada yada yada. And if some kind of horrible result occurs (actual, terrible civil war, or a dictator, or Islamic rule), it will be placed squarely on the Dems.

The Democrats, being politicians, know this will suck for them bigtime. Best let Bush hold the reins because that's where the blame can be placed.

Simple political calculation."

I can't agree more with this...

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 11:38am | #

David Woycechowsky | September 27, 2007, 11:54am | #

8. Military contractors are telling them not to.

9. Oil companies are telling them not to.

10. Large corporate consumers of oil are telling them not to.

actually these should be 1, 2 and 3. THese are the reasons, Republicans, Democrats and corporatarians don't want us to think about. Which is probably how Ms. Lochead and Mr. Gillespie missed them.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 11:57am | #

Refusing to fund any operations at all is a fight the Democrats can't win. Forcing a change of policy is a fight they can win.

joe, they can't force a change of policy without 41+ Senators refusing to exercise the power of the purse, and continuing that refusal until the President breaks. If they refuse to use the one tool at their disposal in order to bring about a change of policy, then they are useless. Maybe in their secret heart of hearts they want a policy change, but when the refuse to use the tools at their disposal to bring it about they are just as bad as people who don't want a policy change.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Since the political angle is the only one that counts in Washington, here's the deal. The Democrats would only pay a price for refusing to press for withdrawal if there were another credible anti-war party to call them on it. Sure, anti-war Democrats are angry with the party for not doing anything meaningful to end the occupation. But who else are they going to vote for?

It's a very cynical (and alas, effective) calculation. The Dems want to hang this dead, smelly albatross around the GOP's neck as long as they can. I believe that a shrewd GOP presidential candidate would get out front on this and find a way to appear "patriotic" while still calling for a withdrawal and bashing the Dems as do-nothings. But I doubt it'll happen.

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 12:27pm | #

""""They died in vain becuase the dumbass president had a plan for winning the war, but no plan for the post war occupation. Thats because you cant build nations, they build from within, which is why Kurdistan is working so well and we will continue to support them as they build a free and democratic nation.""""

That argument doesn't really cut it in the political realm, and I agree with you. But just faulting Bush and pulling out doesn't work if the situation after the pull out becomes worse. No one in politics wants to screw up the Mid-East more than Bush has. That's the fire the Dems are playing with. If you claim to have a solution, it must be a solution and not just throwing gas on the fire on your way out. The Dems want to blame Bush and try to stay out of the blame as much as they can.

There are many lessons to have learned, very few Americans made it to class. If you think the Dems or the left learned, keep in mind that many of them want us to get involved in Sudan as if they want their own military blunder.

""""What then, 8,000 troops cause iraq is gonna be OK in another 6 years? 12,000 troops cause Iraq is gonna Ok in 12 years? How many deaths? How many years? Nobody, I mean nobody, in Washington wants to tackle that one. And yet good American men and women, are dying and getting mutilated daily.""""

There will be no easy solutions for the next President. I wouldn't be suprised if a pro-war candidate is elected. For many, it's more important not to have Hillary as President than to end Americans dying for seemingly unattainable goal. And they think they are worthy of wearing an American flag on their jacket.

ChicagoTom | September 27, 2007, 12:29pm | #

Here's one problem: the Democrats want the withdrawal or whatever "solution" that comes about to be theirs, not something shared with the evil GOP. Therefore, working out a workable compromise that would get them veto-proof majorities is something they are not interested in doing. I imagine that a number of Republicans would run to cover to get out from under the war if something sensible was proposed. Instead, it's politics as usual.

I dunno if I agree with this.

If I remember correctly, many GOPers were talking about how, come september, if we havent seen real progress we are gonna have to change course. And many democrats seemed to banking on that and expecting that they will get bipartisan support for bills with timetables etc.

And then sept came and Petreus doctored the numbers and poof, all the GOPers who talked about how come sept. we will have to make changes if things arent' significantly better all decided: "Nope...we didn't mean any of that".

Now I definately fault the Dems for not seeing the bait and switch coming. Reasonable rhetoric to "give the surge a chance" coming from the mouths of GOPers who are notorious for saying shit they will never actually do, but
I don't think it's that the Dems don't want a bipartisan solution. In fact I think they would love it reluctant GOPers came aboard and validated the DEM agenda.

In fact I think they prefer a bipartisan solution because that will mitigate the criticism if Iraq does get worse post withdrawl

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 12:40pm | #

"""joe, they can't force a change of policy without 41+ Senators refusing to exercise the power of the purse, and continuing that refusal until the President breaks.""""

Nothing else shows how little you support the troops than denying the funds for their beans, bullets, and the means to find the bad guys. (aka logistics) That's the stick the republicans will use to beat those 41+ Senators, it's big, ugly, heavy and hurts a lot. Almost all in DC are concerned with keeping their job.

If you look at the polls, a vast majority want to leave Iraq, but not by denying the troops their resources. Bush has them over a pickle barrel.

James | September 27, 2007, 12:50pm | #

Only because they are dishonest and lack courage.

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 12:55pm | #

James,

You left out the principles and convictions lack, too, which helps amplify the problem. Nothing to take a stand about, you see, except enhancing the GOP's black eye.

JasonL | September 27, 2007, 1:03pm | #

Democrats have the same problem on the war that Republicans have on spending. They are scared to do what their base wants them to do. It's paralysis by populism. If the winds blow the other way, you're screwed.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Except it's not just the base anymore, Jason. A very large majority of the population now wants the troops to come home ASAP.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:06pm | #

thoreau,

You keep using this phrase "one tool at their disposal" to describe funding authority. It is NOT the one tool at their disposal. The power to declare war/authorize force (and to do so conditionally) is ALSO a tool at their disposal.

It seems a little too pat for someone looking to blame the Democrats for the situation we're in to look at the "nuclear option" the Democrats haven't used, and declare that that one option is the only measure of their intent and ability.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:09pm | #

Episiarch,

Remember that if the Democrats do anything real to force withdrawl, the right will go into interstellar overdrive screaming that they are traitors, don't support the troops, are going to be responsible for Iraqi civil war, yada yada yada. And if some kind of horrible result occurs (actual, terrible civil war, or a dictator, or Islamic rule), it will be placed squarely on the Dems.

And, of course, this is the political reasoning that led a substantial minority of Democrats to vote for the AUMF in the first place, and go along with so many other Republican "War on Terror" policies over the past few years. If you want DHS employees to have civil service status, it's because you want terrorists to kill thoreau's granny, doncha know.

But haven't you noticed that the political situation in this country has changed a bit, at least in regards to Iraq, over the past couple of years? And thus, the political calculous of self-serving politicians would change as well, no?

Loundry | September 27, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Single-issue voters suck.

"The war must end, and that is that" blows pony.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:13pm | #

Pro Libertate,

Here's one problem: the Democrats want the withdrawal or whatever "solution" that comes about to be theirs, not something shared with the evil GOP. Therefore, working out a workable compromise that would get them veto-proof majorities is something they are not interested in doing.

I think just the opposite; the Democrats are suffering from an overabundance of commmitment to bipartisanship, not a shortage of it. Instead of opening the negotiation with a too-low offer and negotiating to the middle, they are opening with "reasonable" middle offers. The Congressional Republicans than split the difference halfway, and then the White House splits it halfway again, so the "bipartisan comprise" ends up being 7/8 of what Dick Cheney wants. That's how we get the "benchmarks" bill that followed the veto of the "timelines" bill this past March.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:16pm | #

And many democrats seemed to banking on that and expecting that they will get bipartisan support for bills with timetables etc.

That's strange, I have the suddern urge to rub ice on my ears.

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 1:17pm | #

joe,

I don't share your faith in the good intentions of the Democrats. I'll say the same to anyone who pops up showering love on the GOP. Bah.

I don't even want bipartisanship on the war. I want nonpartisanship.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 1:26pm | #

I don't even want bipartisanship on the war. I want nonpartisanship.

And I want a free Ferrari.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 1:27pm | #

joe, all of the other tools at their disposal can be filibustered (and they lack the votes to stop that) or vetoed (and they lack the votes to stop that).

They have a tool. The tool will work. It will accomplish a goal with wide public support. A goal that they were elected to achieve.

This ain't rocket science.

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 1:28pm | #

the Democrats are suffering from an overabundance of commmitment to bipartisanship, not a shortage of it

joe, no offense, but I think you have been taken for a ride by the DNC spinmeisters. They've been spinning the "we are the party of compromise" thing for a long time now, even as they were filibustering, and it's pure, weapons-grade balonium.

Yes, opinion on the war has changed. However, that does not mean that it cannot change back. For instance, what if the Dems played hardball finally, troops were drawn down, and then a serious terrorist attack occurred that was somehow linked to Iraq? They would get massacred.

So are trying to float in limbo, pleasing the base when they can, making no firm stances, until they can make a move that seems prudent or has overwhelming support.

Pure politcal calculation. That's what politicians--all of them--do.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:32pm | #

Pro Lib,

I was criticizing the Congressional Dems' quest for DC-style "bipartisanship," not offering it as evidence of their good intentions. If anything, it is evidence of their cowardice.

They should force their Republican colleagues to cross the line by making their lives miserable and their pretty little stories untenable, not try to coax them into playing nice.

And what is this about "good intentions?" I've been talking about self-serving political calculous, just like everyone else. I think you're just striking a worldlier-than-thou pose.

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 1:35pm | #

ChrisO,

Hey, if they want to put partisan gravy ahead of national interests, I don't have to like it. Even if I can't do anything about it. This strange false dichotomy that only considers Beltway issues is not a necessary component of our system. If we voters weren't so gullible and short-sighted, we'd vote out people who keep behaving in such a manner. Unfortunately, we just act like this sort of thing is completely acceptable.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:40pm | #

2+2=5 ain't rocket science either, thoreau. It just ain't true.

IF the Democrats believed that the more-effective, more-responsible tool of winning a vote to force a change in policy to one of withdrawal + some set of "cleanup" missions was doomed to failure, than the second-best option of pulling the plug and forcing an uncoordinated withdrawal without, say, protecting the Kurds and continuing actions against al Qaeda would be all they have left.

However, Republican unity has been cracking for some time now on this, and the pursuit of a winning majority is still a real possibility. Over the course of the last 9 months, they've gotten closer and closer to that goal. Especially with the public statements so many Republicans made about September, it made sense to keep pursuing that strategy.

That said, if they don't succeed in getting those defections in the next month or two - meaning, if those Republicans use the unreliable happy talk of David Patraeus to go back on their word - then I'll agree that it's going to be time to call off that effort.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 1:42pm | #

Hey, if they want to put partisan gravy ahead of national interests, I don't have to like it. Even if I can't do anything about it. This strange false dichotomy that only considers Beltway issues is not a necessary component of our system. If we voters weren't so gullible and short-sighted, we'd vote out people who keep behaving in such a manner. Unfortunately, we just act like this sort of thing is completely acceptable.

You won't get any argument from me there. Problem is, in the world that actually exists, that's the government we have. Developing a solution to end the Iraqi occupation requires dealing with that reality.

As I said before, a shrewd GOP candidate would be one with hawk credentials (not Ron Paul, alas) who could separate himself from the pack by calling for withdrawal in such a way as to look hawkish and "patriotic." McCain would have been the logical one to do this, had he not tied himself so tightly to the Bush administration's strategy. As both a 'hawk' and a 'maverick', he could have gotten away with it and achieved separation from Romney/Giuliani/Thompson.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Episiarch,

They've been spinning the "we are the party of compromise" thing for a long time now, even as they were filibustering, and it's pure, weapons-grade balonium. What do you think their assent to the "benchmarks bill" was, if not the action of "the party of compromise?"

And why would Democratic spinmeisters want to oversell the public on their party's eagerness to compromise with the doomed, loathed War Party?

I'm looking at this in terms of raw political calculation just like you; the difference between us is that you are assuming the math still works out the way it did in 2002, and I'm not.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 1:45pm | #

joe, why should Bush negotiate with a party that is scared of vetoes and filibusters?

More to the point, I'll grant that it would be better to use some other tool if that tool is available. However, if they can't end filibusters and over-ride vetoes, they have only one tool left. How long should they wait before concluding that the necessary votes won't materialize.

I hope you'll agree that if the necessary votes never materialize they have only one tool left. And if they wait forever they'll have zero leverage. Besides, using that one tool might shift the political ground and make negotiation possible. People who desperately want funds are far more likely to negotiate. And once they do, then a more coordinated withdrawal becomes possible.

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 1:46pm | #

ChrisO,

In other words, only Nixon can go to China.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:47pm | #

It's funny that I keep being accused of a naive faith in the Democrats' statemanship, when I've been arguing from the position of political calculation for the entire thread.

Looking it over, the only one arguing that the Democrats' behavior is best explained by a noble commitment to the greater good was...well...John, at 9:42 AM.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 1:47pm | #

joe, you talked about the September bluff. The GOP said that they'd change their minds in September if things didn't get better. September came, they bought the lie, and the promised votes haven't materialized.

Should they wait for another deadline and a promise to change votes then, and then watch Lucy pull the football away again?

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 1:48pm | #

Another point is that Congress has always had difficulties in addressing its foreign policy role. And on such a politically diffuse issue like Iraq, that difficulty is compounded.

Further, in the modern era, Congress rarely wins when it attempts to get into a smackdown with the President. Newt Gingrich & Co. learned this the hard way. Congress is 535 generals and no foot soldiers, trying to fight against a unitary figure with a massive PR machine backing him. To be effective, Congress has to use its power in more subtle ways, even if doing so is less emotionally satisfying to the blogosphere.

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 1:53pm | #

the difference between us is that you are assuming the math still works out the way it did in 2002, and I'm not

No, I think you are overestimating the public's anti-war stance, and that they "loathe" the "doomed" "War Party". Don't put too much trust in polls, especially if they are indicating something you like.

Many Americans are sick of the war, but do not want another Vietnam ending, or the stain of a "loss". If they are provided with another way to end this thing "with honor" (was it Huckabee who said that?) that seems feasible, they will go for it. Democrats taking too strong a stance now would get burned if that opportunity shows up. Hell, I don't like to ascribe too much intelligence to politicians, but politics is what they do, and I wouldn't be overly surprised if Bush & Co. aren't trying to sucker the Democrats into getting strong and then whipping out a surprise.

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 1:55pm | #

joe,

The political calculation is solely to keep the GOP on the hot seat for as long as possible, and damn the consequences. You said before the last election and since that the Democrats were given the majority to end the war and would do everything they could to end the war.

They betrayed you, man. And the rest of us, though I'm not surprised.

joe | September 27, 2007, 1:57pm | #

thoreau,

Bush doesn't compromise. There is nothing that would make him meet them halfway, or evena quater of the way. Bush looks at Capitol Hill just like he looks at Iraq - you either bet the mortgage on Total Victory, or you are assenting to a cowardly defeat. This isn't about Bush, it's about the Congressional Republicans.

That said, "How long?" is, I think, exactly the right question. The Democrats have held Congress for 9 months, just over 1/3 of this Congressional term. The self-imposed deadline the Republicans have been talking about is on us now. When the Democrats come back after the holiday break, it will be halfway through this Congress.

I'd say the Democrats should let the wobbly GOPers spend the break listening to "I'll Be Home for Chirstmas" and watching the news from Iraq, and then give them one last chance when they come back to work.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 1:58pm | #

In other words, only Nixon can go to China.

Yeah, that's a much more succinct way of putting it.

I believe the only way to end the bipartisan gridlock on Iraq is for someone from the war party to reframe the debate. I'm guessing that 9 out of 10 relevant GOP officials understand quite well that the only substantive issue is when we pull our forces out and let the chaos begin. The problem is who gets to be the first hawk to break ranks and how to do so without committing career suicide. The Chuck Hagels of the world don't figure into this because other Republicans don't take them seriously.

TrickyVic | September 27, 2007, 1:58pm | #

"""How long should they wait before concluding that the necessary votes won't materialize."""

The voters can rectify the veto fears. If America really wants the votes to materialize, they will in 2008.

"""Should they wait for another deadline and a promise to change votes then, and then watch Lucy pull the football away again?"""

They don't have much of a choice as long as Lucy is holding the ball.

joe | September 27, 2007, 2:00pm | #

I believe the only way to end the bipartisan gridlock on Iraq is for someone from the war party to reframe the debate.

You know, I'm not sure, but I think I saw Kay Bailey Hutchenson, the Repubican Senator from Texas who can actually do long division, doing exactly that last night on CSPAN.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 2:05pm | #

You know, I'm not sure, but I think I saw Kay Bailey Hutchenson, the Repubican Senator from Texas who can actually do long division, doing exactly that last night on CSPAN.

What was the gist of her remarks? She's be a good candidate in my scenario, as someone well-regarded by Republicans who is also an extremely shrewd and subtle political operator.

Rick Barton | September 27, 2007, 2:09pm | #

1. Lack of votes: Democrats...need 60 to overcome Republican filibusters that have blocked every proposal to change the U.S. mission. Even if they cleared that hurdle, they lack the two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate to overcome a presidential veto.

7. The Constitution: Congress' only tool is to cut off funds for the war, which it can't do because there are not enough votes.

I call BS-Total BS! Many Democrat partisans have been repeating this self serving fabrication. The Dems don't even need to hold a vote to end this tragic and needless war. All they have to do is not vote the money to fund it. That's the way our Constitution works. They don't have to worry about a veto. There is plenty of money in the pipeline to evacuate our troops. And even if there wasn't, they could appropriate just that much.

The Dems keep repeating this BS so that they can use the war to run against the GOP in the elections. ("Just give us the presidency and more members if you want to end the war") Now the Dems have the blood of this ridiculous war on their hands too. They could stop needless American casualties, but they won't for political reasons. And of course, don't expect the warmongers over at FOX or the Bush administration to call em on it.

To be fair, I must observe that among the Dem hopefuls, Dennis Kucinich has pointed out that presently the Dems have the numbers to end the war, if they actually wanted to. Ron Paul has vociferously noted this fact as well.

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 2:15pm | #

To be fair to all of the annoying partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle, there's no easy solution here. If I were calling the shots, I'd probably advocate a pretty slow withdrawal, realizing that we could run into some nasty business of our own when troop levels got low enough, not to mention the chaos that could result.

I've suggested half-seriously working out a deal with the Kurds to withdraw into "Kurdistan" and maybe hang out there for a while (serving the dual purpose of keeping other countries out of Iraq and protecting the Kurds)--maybe that's not as strange an idea as I originally thought. Beats the administration's apparent interest in withdrawing to Iran.

In the medium term, I think the U.S. should think long and hard about maybe withdrawing as the great power and sole arbiter in the Middle East. It's an unnatural role for us, and one that is simply not necessary to protect our strategic interests. Let Europe deal with it. Or not deal with it. Israel can defend itself, so it no longer needs our active support.

It's not fear of terrorists or anything like that that motivates me; I just don't see the point of our continued involvement. I suspect religion as much as oil plays a role in our strange obsession. And personal ego--everyone wants to look brilliant and solve the problem. We get much more oil from the Western Hemisphere (not counting our own vast oil resources) than from the entire Middle East, and we're working to lower what limited dependence we have left on Middle Eastern oil, anyway.

joe | September 27, 2007, 2:18pm | #

Chris O,

She was talking about her co-sponsorship of the bipartisan Biden Amendment - the one to create a soft partition. She was acknowledging that the president's policy wasn't working, that an exit strategy was needed, and presenting that as the responsible alternative to saying "the hell with it," and pulling everyone out ASAP. To make it go down easier with her party, she was careful to sweeten her remarks with plenty of charges of treason, cowardice, and dishonor among the Democrats, but the substance was much more concilliatory.

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 2:19pm | #

I'm honestly surprised that any of you thought the Dems would change anything. This whole situation is just too good for whipping the GOP for them to give it up. And the GOP got into this situation by following Bush because it was just too good for whipping the Dems.

The lives of our soldiers and our money are absolutely nothing to them. Power is everything.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Bush doesn't compromise. There is nothing that would make him meet them halfway, or evena quater of the way. Bush looks at Capitol Hill just like he looks at Iraq - you either bet the mortgage on Total Victory, or you are assenting to a cowardly defeat. This isn't about Bush, it's about the Congressional Republicans.

1) Do you think he'll cave if enough Congressional Republicans join in voting for some sort of withdrawal measure with teeth? Or will he simply invoke "inherent powers"?

2) If he won't cave even in that case, then why wait for the votes? Why not just invoke the nuclear option of cutting off funds now? Or do you think he'll invoke "inherent powers" even in the absence of funds?

If there's simply no way to get him to obey a law, then there are more important things that getting Congressional Republicans to join in a measure to start an immediate but well-executed withdrawal. We are then in a state of lawlessness, and I have no clue what to do in that situation. Well, I know what we should do, but there won't be enough votes for impeachment and conviction.

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Episiarch,

My cynicism is pure and unbroken ☺

Partition is another option that I think is worth considering. Yeah, yeah, I know the history with such things, but it beats the current situation. Doing that would likely mean forcing the Turks to accept a true Kurdistan, but screw 'em. They've got to find a solution to their issues with the Kurds, anyway, if they ever want to get into the E.U.

ChicagoTom | September 27, 2007, 2:36pm | #

However, Republican unity has been cracking for some time now on this, and the pursuit of a winning majority is still a real possibility. Over the course of the last 9 months, they've gotten closer and closer to that goal. Especially with the public statements so many Republicans made about September, it made sense to keep pursuing that strategy.

The GOP rhetoric had made it seem like unity has been cracking, but please show where any unity has been cracked when it came time to vote. What votes have the GOP splintered on? Which GOP filibusters have failed?
This seems like a LOT of wishful thinking

That said, if they don't succeed in getting those defections in the next month or two - meaning, if those Republicans use the unreliable happy talk of David Patraeus to go back on their word - then I'll agree that it's going to be time to call off that effort.

Maybe it's time to agree to call that effort off?

This is already happening. John Warner is a great example. He talked a good game about how come Sept. we will have to change course, and then when sept. came, he decided that things are just going swimmingly.

Susan Collins is another one:
If Bush's strategy in Iraq does not show 'significant results' by fall, "then Congress should consider all options including a redefinition of our mission and a gradual but significant withdrawal of our troops next year."

Mitch McConnel 6 months ago:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has steadfastly supported the mission, said Republicans’ patience is nearly exhausted, too.

“This is the last chance for the Iraqis,” the Kentucky Republican said in an interview with The Examiner. “The last chance for them to step up and demonstrate that they can do their part to save their country.”

Joe Lieberman last match:
Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then.

Trent Lott:
“Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott says President Bush's new strategy in Iraq has until about fall before GOP members will need to see results. Lott's comment Monday put a fine point on what Senate Republican stalwarts have been discussing quietly for weeks. It also echoed remarks made this weekend by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, indicating the GOP's limited patience on the war. ‘I do think this fall we have to see some significant changes on the ground, in Baghdad and other surrounding areas,’ Lott, R-Miss., told reporters.” (AP, 5/8/07)

Thomas Paine's Goiter | September 27, 2007, 3:13pm | #

Instead of the people who started it. God damn, I hate politics.

The democrats were standing behind those people who started it urging them on with all of their 'yes' votes. That's why we're here in the first place.

joe | September 27, 2007, 3:29pm | #

thoreau,

1) I dunno. Maybe.

2) If he vetoes a bipartisan bill in 2008, one that even a good segments of the Republicans support (enough that it can plausibly be called "bipartisan") then perhaps even the most chicken-hearted Democrats would feel comfortable making the "he left us no choice" argument and voting for a funding cutoff.

joe | September 27, 2007, 3:36pm | #

The democrats were standing behind those people who started it urging them on with all of their 'yes' votes. That's why we're here in the first place.

The Democrats in Congress voted against the AUMF by a 58-42% margin, even in the midst of the poisonois political atmosphere of Fall 2002.

thoreau | September 27, 2007, 3:45pm | #

joe had comment #99. While not as coveted as comment #69, he should still get a red balloon for his efforts.

99 comments in the tubes...

Pro Libertate | September 27, 2007, 3:48pm | #

thoreau,

Only if he had posted in German.

ChrisO | September 27, 2007, 3:52pm | #

She was talking about her co-sponsorship of the bipartisan Biden Amendment - the one to create a soft partition. She was acknowledging that the president's policy wasn't working, that an exit strategy was needed, and presenting that as the responsible alternative to saying "the hell with it," and pulling everyone out ASAP. To make it go down easier with her party, she was careful to sweeten her remarks with plenty of charges of treason, cowardice, and dishonor among the Democrats, but the substance was much more concilliatory.

I suspect that partition will be the next idea du jour, once the Bushies are out.

In the end, some form of partition is probably inevitable, since Iraq was an artificial creation to begin with. However, such a course is no less difficult, especially if it's Americans who try and whip up a partition, as those comments by Prof. Lynch in that Cato video illustrate.

At least in the former Yugoslavia, there were the pre-WWI component states to fall back on. In Iraq, there aren't such convenient divisions, and several parts of the country are ethnically mixed. The old Ottoman provincial boundaries within Iraq wouldn't correspond well to the ethnic boundaries and of course don't have any proponents within the country anyway.

joe | September 27, 2007, 3:58pm | #

99 trolls of the net
Write super-high-test goading posts

Everyone an Uber-troll
Everyone an Ur-kobold.

prolefeed | September 27, 2007, 3:59pm | #

Let's also consider that many Democrats, at least behind closed doors, probably believe that we need to remain in Iraq. I mean, they did vote to go in there in the first place.

Another 5-percenter for Dan T. Keep it up!

joe | September 27, 2007, 4:01pm | #

Chris O,

That's where the "soft" part of "soft partition" comes in. In practice, we're talking about federalism + the withdrawal of troops from provinces that don't want us and the presence in troops in provinces that do.

The provincial boundaries recognized in the existing constitution are as good as any, I suppose.

prolefeed | September 27, 2007, 4:02pm | #

If Democrats are actually unwilling to end the war because of strategic or political concerns, you wouldn't know it by the overwhelming landslide majorities - on the order of 90-99% - who keep voting to end the war when a bill to do so comes up.

joe, you mean like the recent 28-70 Senate vote to cut off funding, where almost half the Democrats refused to vote to end the war?

Do facts matter at all to you on this issue?

joshua corning | September 27, 2007, 4:08pm | #

7. The Constitution: If the United States were a parliamentary democracy, the Bush administration would have been replaced last November. But under the Constitution, the president is commander in chief, and Congress' only tool is to cut off funds for the war, which it can't do because there are not enough votes.

If the US was a parliamentary democracy it would have descended into fascism lion long ago.

joe | September 27, 2007, 4:09pm | #

One could say that "Democrats voted to go to Iraq in the first place," and that could be read as a bit of anti-Democratic partisanship, or as a bit of third-party partisanship.

Or, one could say that "Democrats voted against the Iraq War by a 58-42% margin," and that could be read as a bit of Democratic partisanship.

But here's the thing: we have these thing called "objective reality." Sometimes, this "objective reality" is written down on bits of paper. Other times, it can be found on the internet.

In the reality-based community, when we are trying to figure out if a particular statement is indicative of a bias, we don't first consider its usefulness in advancing one particular partisan viewpoint.

Instead, we go to those pieces of paper, or the internet, and see how well that statement conforms to this "objective reality" thingie.

joe | September 27, 2007, 4:11pm | #

prolefeed,

I was thinking more about the vote in March, when they party voted with virtual unanimity in both houses to impose hard timelines for the withdrawal of troops.

You're not really going to play the "John Kerry voted against this bill that included money for the F-16, so he opposes the F-16" game, are you?

prolefeed | September 27, 2007, 4:11pm | #

If we leave Iraq will become a bigger clusterfuck. No one really wants that. 4000 troops died for what? And almost all of those were after we "won" by defeating Saddam. The Dems would have to explain how 4000 didn't die in vain. That's defense they do not want to play and understandable so.

Ummm, about 70% of the public wants that. As for the not dying in vain stuff -- ever take an econ course where they explained sunk costs?

Episiarch | September 27, 2007, 4:14pm | #

In the reality-based community

joe, seriously, don't use DailyKos/DU lingo. Just a bit of friendly advice.

prolefeed | September 27, 2007, 4:43pm | #

I was thinking more about the vote in March, when they party voted with virtual unanimity in both houses to impose hard timelines for the withdrawal of troops.

joe -- what part of "41 votes needed to end the war via a funding filibuster, and out of 49+2 Democrats, 28 voted to end it" do you not get?

Affirmative legislation is dead in the water. That needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Filibustering funding is what's possible, and the Democrats are 13 shy of what's needed to pull that off.

28-70, joe. So quit BSing us about "90-99%" of Democrats support ending the war now. 28 do. The rest are milling about like sheep, testing the wind, and hoping they can still hang the war around the necks of Republicans for at least one more election cycle. You know, that political calculation thingy you say you're talking about.

joe | September 28, 2007, 9:20am | #

What are you, kidding me? I've answered that question about twelve times already, on this self-same thread!

You don't ever have to worry about me not "getting" something you've figured out, prolefeed. You can put your mind at ease. As nice as it may make you feel to strike that particular pose, doing so after I've written about twenty paragraphs on the subject just makes you look like an ass.

TrickyVic | September 28, 2007, 5:10pm | #

"""Ummm, about 70% of the public wants that. As for the not dying in vain stuff -- ever take an econ course where they explained sunk costs?"""

Many think the sunk cost won't exist until we leave, it's the person that hangs on to a losing stock because they believe they haven't lost until they sold and that things will get better. As far as the 70%, I'd like to see the link to that poll. Not that I disbelieve you, but it was probably a simple question like "should we leave Iraq?" If the question is "should we leave Iraq if... and have a negative end scenario such as if Iraq end up in the crapper that number gets lower.

The secret to polls is in how the question phrased.

TrickyVic | September 28, 2007, 5:17pm | #

""The rest are milling about like sheep, testing the wind, and hoping they can still hang the war around the necks of Republicans for at least one more election cycle.""

Pretty much, yeah. If Iraq doesn't look any better by November 08 the Dems will pick-up the votes they need to get things their way. But if Republicans can use the war as a point to get elected as Bush did in '04. I don't see a problem with the Dems using the war to their political ends.

Site Search

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Hit & Run Archives

RSS Feed

7 Reasons Democrats Can't End the War

Comments to "7 Reasons Democrats Can't End the War":